Make sure our math is right

Published: Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 9:23 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 9:23 p.m.

As we discuss radically altering the state’s tax structure, honesty and accuracy will be essential.

There are good reasons to be skeptical, but we must at least begin from a point where there is agreement on the numbers.

A cornerstone of the ongoing debate over Gov. Bobby Jindal’s effort to do away with the state’s corporate and personal income taxes is the governor’s promise to make the plan revenue-neutral.

That means the governor’s plan, if it works as it should, will take in the same amount of money that the current system would next year and in years to come.

The central idea is that an increase in sales taxes across Louisiana would make up for the money lost by doing away with income taxes. By doing so, Jindal and his advisers argue, the state would do away with many of the loopholes that currently plague the system while giving most families a bit of a tax break in the transition.

Keeping the plan revenue-neutral is a must. The state even now is dealing with crippling money problems that have led to severe cutbacks in money spent on health care and higher education. So it is troubling, to say the least, that a statewide group has taken issue with the numbers the governor is using to defend his plan.

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana is a nonprofit, nonpartisan good-government watchdog group. In its analysis of the governor’s plan, PAR says the state could end up $500 million to $650 million short of current revenues under Jindal’s proposal.

While PAR applauds the governor’s actions in starting the conversation over taxes, it says some of the assumptions made in his plan are unrealistic and could lead to serious money problems in years to come.

For instance, PAR says the plan overestimates the money the state would take in by increasing the cigarette tax by $1.05 a pack. The state’s numbers also underestimate the money the state would take in under the current tax system, PAR says.

Tim Barfield, who is overseeing the tax restructuring for Jindal, stands by the state numbers and says PAR’s own calculations misinterpret the state’s.

PAR has a long history of making accurate, nonpartisan analyses of government action, and its misgivings give us ample reason to question Jindal’s plan.

There will be time in the coming weeks to sort out the numbers and make sure the math is correct. And we must do exactly that.

The Legislature must delve into the tax plan, and it must be allowed the autonomy to do so. When the Legislature took up education reform last year, it did so hurriedly and with precious little debate. Now, those reforms are facing legal challenges, the outcomes of which are uncertain.

As we embark on potential changes to our tax system, the debate must be real and must be based on accurate information. We simply cannot afford to place fiscal landmines in future budgets.

Whether Jindal is right, PAR is right or the truth lies somewhere between the two, the Legislature must base its debate and ultimate decision on good numbers.

<p>As we discuss radically altering the state's tax structure, honesty and accuracy will be essential.</p><p>There are good reasons to be skeptical, but we must at least begin from a point where there is agreement on the numbers.</p><p>A cornerstone of the ongoing debate over Gov. Bobby Jindal's effort to do away with the state's corporate and personal income taxes is the governor's promise to make the plan revenue-neutral.</p><p>That means the governor's plan, if it works as it should, will take in the same amount of money that the current system would next year and in years to come.</p><p>The central idea is that an increase in sales taxes across Louisiana would make up for the money lost by doing away with income taxes. By doing so, Jindal and his advisers argue, the state would do away with many of the loopholes that currently plague the system while giving most families a bit of a tax break in the transition.</p><p>Keeping the plan revenue-neutral is a must. The state even now is dealing with crippling money problems that have led to severe cutbacks in money spent on health care and higher education. So it is troubling, to say the least, that a statewide group has taken issue with the numbers the governor is using to defend his plan.</p><p>The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana is a nonprofit, nonpartisan good-government watchdog group. In its analysis of the governor's plan, PAR says the state could end up $500 million to $650 million short of current revenues under Jindal's proposal.</p><p>While PAR applauds the governor's actions in starting the conversation over taxes, it says some of the assumptions made in his plan are unrealistic and could lead to serious money problems in years to come.</p><p>For instance, PAR says the plan overestimates the money the state would take in by increasing the cigarette tax by $1.05 a pack. The state's numbers also underestimate the money the state would take in under the current tax system, PAR says.</p><p>Tim Barfield, who is overseeing the tax restructuring for Jindal, stands by the state numbers and says PAR's own calculations misinterpret the state's.</p><p>PAR has a long history of making accurate, nonpartisan analyses of government action, and its misgivings give us ample reason to question Jindal's plan.</p><p>There will be time in the coming weeks to sort out the numbers and make sure the math is correct. And we must do exactly that.</p><p>The Legislature must delve into the tax plan, and it must be allowed the autonomy to do so. When the Legislature took up education reform last year, it did so hurriedly and with precious little debate. Now, those reforms are facing legal challenges, the outcomes of which are uncertain.</p><p>As we embark on potential changes to our tax system, the debate must be real and must be based on accurate information. We simply cannot afford to place fiscal landmines in future budgets.</p><p>Whether Jindal is right, PAR is right or the truth lies somewhere between the two, the Legislature must base its debate and ultimate decision on good numbers.</p><p>PAR's analysis gives us a great place to start the debate.</p><p>Editorials represent the opinions of</p><p>the newspaper, not of any individual.</p>